This November, Colorado voters will decide whether to ban people younger than 18 from receiving gender-affirming surgeries in the state.
Supporters and opponents differ over whether they believe the measure could have unintended consequences for other types of care, including for teens who are not transgender.
Gender-affirming surgeries are rare in people under 18, and no Colorado hospitals offer them.
Most medical groups believe chest surgery should be an option for teens with severe gender dysphoria — distress caused by a mismatch between someone’s identity and how others see them. Treatment for gender dysphoria can also include non-medical changes, such as dressing differently, puberty blockers for preteens and hormonal therapy for teenagers.
Because Prop 135 would change state law, rather than add new language to the state constitution, it needs only a simple majority to pass.
What would Prop 135 do if passed?
Proposition 135 in people younger than 18 because of their feelings about their gender or sex. It also would prohibit Medicaid and private insurance from .
The measure doesn’t define either “biological sex characteristics” or “surgery,” though it does specifically exempt male circumcision. It also says that surgeries on atypically developing sexual organs or to correct a physical condition that develops in childhood would remain legal.
How much would it cost?
The for ballot initiatives says any additional costs to change regulations would be “minimal,” as would any savings if Medicaid no longer covers gender-affirming surgeries.
What do supporters say?
Supporters argue that legal minors can’t make fully informed choices about medical interventions, and that gender-affirming surgeries carry risks of infertility, other complications and regret.
“It is truly just to protect children from decisions that will make it impossible for them to have children when they’re adults,” said Patricia McKernan, a board member of Protect Kids Colorado, one of two registered issue committees supporting the measure.
What do opponents say?
Opponents argue that doctors and parents are best placed to assess what medical care transgender teenagers need, and that the proposition could make it harder for cisgender youth to access healthcare for conditions affecting their chests or genitalia.
“It takes power away from parents and medical providers and gives it to the government,” said Jack Teter, the vice president of government affairs for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
